racketboy.com

Honestly, what CDs and DVDs offered over cassettes and VHS was ease of use. Sure, the quality was better, but a brand new VHS film didn’t look bad. What was really the winner was being able to skip tracks and chapters and not having to rewind. Also, improved portability. And BD and “high resolution” audio, while technically better, don’t actually fundamentally change the use paradigm to overcome “good enough”. There is no additional ease of use benefit or improved portability.

Every time I go back to VHS, I'm actually surprised to find that it's better than I expect it to be. Don't get me wrong, stuff recorded off the TV is all blurry and whatnot, and there's some tapes that are worn out or have color problems due to where they were stored. But if you have a store-bought movie and it's in good condition, it looks surprisingly clear on a standard def CRT. At least, a lot more clear that I expect. The few times I've watched VHS on an HD set though, yeah, that's bad.

o.pwuaioc wrote:So yeah, visually I guess I wouldn't be able to see much or any of a difference in Blu-ray with this TV? But the sound is a good point. I just don't know if I want to buy yet another thing to go under my TV when all I really use it for is playing games from the 80s and 90s or the occasional movie.

It'd depend a bit on the content I think. The TV should be capable of showing a difference, but it's also well equipped to upscale DVDs to look good.

A big consideration for Blu-ray is also shifting to HDMI. If you're using something like component video and optical audio, players will downmix to nearly DVD quality. Originally, players could do 1080i over component, but later, analog output was reduced to 960x540 or component support was simply dropped (as it was on later PS3s, for instance).
Audio is similarly downmixed. You won't get lossless audio over anything else, and "rebroadcasting" the signal may simple net you stereo.
It's all for the sake of copy protection. HDCP requires a protected path for the good stuff, which means HDMI.

To me, your sort of setup is on the edge of it. You have HDMI on it, you could be set up for it. Or you might just be using component or less, at which point spending more on Blu-ray is almost pointless outside of availability or future proofing.
Streaming is really what's taking over, and to me, DVD is hanging on more with the folks that have older gear or simply can't stream for one reason or another. Blu-ray/4k are more for the aficionados looking to make the most out of their home theater setups, ensuring less compressed data than streaming. Or just for collectors.

RCBH928 wrote:I noticed that BD quality has a bitrate of 40Mbps, since we now have 1Gpbs doesn't it make sense that streamed content should be on par or higher than BD? but its not. I am only guessing the compression is to force lower server loads, to download a 5GB HD movie is lighter than 25GB.

~

Its interesting they are putting the investment and effort to do remasters for 4K BD because I imagine the sales are really low as people with 4k tvs and 4k playes and in the market to purchase 4k movies seem to be really niche now days. I will guess its the same master they will use for all streaming service, digital downloads,...and 4K BD to make it worth the investment. Although as I mentioned earlier they are upgrading people's 1080P purchases to 4K for free, thats unlike the studios we have known that try to mark up everything with every new release.

Up to 48Mbps combined with audio, but streaming tends to be more compressed. Netflix's 1080p used to be up to 5.8Mbps, more recently down to 1.5. Some of that is due to different codecs n' things, but it's still a lot less data. 4k discs are 96 to 144 Mbps depending on density. Netflix's 4k streams are 8-16.

Not that it's necessarily a problem. Either is just using data rates and compression that suit the purpose - the existence of gigabit internet doesn't mean everyone has it, or that those that do don't have data caps. Again though, also why you still tend to see enthusiasts buying discs.


New masters do serve all sort of purposes, like you mentioned. It's not that they're just selling a disc, it's also what streaming files can get updated to/etc.

@o.pwuaioc

There is no reason to go back to VHS, I was just pointing out as for the quality jump between dvd-to-BD you won't feel the difference as people were already happy watching on VHS. You are not missing on much.

marurun wrote:Honestly, what CDs and DVDs offered over cassettes and VHS was ease of use. Sure, the quality was better, but a brand new VHS film didn’t look bad. What was really the winner was being able to skip tracks and chapters and not having to rewind. Also, improved portability. And BD and “high resolution” audio, while technically better, don’t actually fundamentally change the use paradigm to overcome “good enough”. There is no additional ease of use benefit or improved portability.

You also forgot space saving. IIRC a VHS can store about 2hrs worth of video, so a show like Fresh Prince of Bel-Air would be about 24 tapes(148-20min episode). Compared to the DVD boxset which is about 3-4 VHS together, about 88% less space. I don't remember any full set on VHS. With Bluray you can store much more, especially the 4K ones. If my calculation is correct, you can store the whole series FPoB on about 3-4 Ultra BD discs in original SD quality, around one BD case.

I must say though, CD's and DVDs were very susceptible to scratches unlike VHS. I remember horror-like experiences renting from stores, people seem to play frisbee with these things. On BD, navigating around the disc seems slow and heavy and no instant as with DVD. Maybe newer players fixed this?!

Ziggy587 wrote:Every time I go back to VHS, I'm actually surprised to find that it's better than I expect it to be. Don't get me wrong, stuff recorded off the TV is all blurry and whatnot, and there's some tapes that are worn out or have color problems due to where they were stored. But if you have a store-bought movie and it's in good condition, it looks surprisingly clear on a standard def CRT. At least, a lot more clear that I expect. The few times I've watched VHS on an HD set though, yeah, that's bad.

VHS is surprisingly good, even on HDTV. Most people have memories of bad VHS picture because they watch that stuff that was recorded from TV and had sound like someone speaking alone in a cave, I don't know how they get that results it has its charms for me Or they have seen a VHS which is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy... the original-manufactured ones are pretty decent!

isiolia wrote:Streaming is really what's taking over, and to me, DVD is hanging on more with the folks that have older gear or simply can't stream for one reason or another. Blu-ray/4k are more for the aficionados looking to make the most out of their home theater setups, ensuring less compressed data than streaming. Or just for collectors.

I was happy watching Netflix streams and thought the picture quality was great, until I switch back from BD and the picture looked very washed out. BD was so much more vibrant. Any one noticed this? Do all streaming services have same picture quality?

isiolia wrote:Up to 48Mbps combined with audio, but streaming tends to be more compressed. Netflix's 1080p used to be up to 5.8Mbps, more recently down to 1.5. Some of that is due to different codecs n' things, but it's still a lot less data. 4k discs are 96 to 144 Mbps depending on density. Netflix's 4k streams are 8-16.

Not that it's necessarily a problem. Either is just using data rates and compression that suit the purpose - the existence of gigabit internet doesn't mean everyone has it, or that those that do don't have data caps. Again though, also why you still tend to see enthusiasts buying discs.

You are right but maybe they should leave it as an option to the viewer if he wants the uncompressed stream because his internet can handle it, just like the give you the option between SD and HD and YouTube's many resolution choices for each video.

RCBH928 wrote:I was happy watching Netflix streams and thought the picture quality was great, until I switch back from BD and the picture looked very washed out. BD was so much more vibrant. Any one noticed this? Do all streaming services have same picture quality?

I haven't really seen that. Usually what I'll notice between them are compression artifacts. What I would suspect in your case is maybe swapping input sources, which may output a different signal, or end up using a different color profile on the TV.
Streaming services can utilize different tech and offer different features though, sure. For instance, HBO (last I've seen) was still not doing 4k/HDR, where several of the other big ones have been for a while (though Netflix charges more for it).

You are right but maybe they should leave it as an option to the viewer if he wants the uncompressed stream because his internet can handle it, just like the give you the option between SD and HD and YouTube's many resolution choices for each video.

It's not something they do just for the customer's sake though. Figure, Netflix (and others) are hosting massive libraries of media that tens of millions of people access every month. That's data they need to store and transmit as part of doing business. Improving on compression saves them money, if nothing else.

isiolia wrote:It's not something they do just for the customer's sake though. Figure, Netflix (and others) are hosting massive libraries of media that tens of millions of people access every month. That's data they need to store and transmit as part of doing business. Improving on compression saves them money, if nothing else.

This was my understanding but it seems that companies do not mind storing more information and streaming more. For example Netflix will let you stream infinitely for $10, so will Steam with their 50GB games, iCloud will let you backup and restore 100s of GBs of your Apple devices,